Correction.
Correction.
Time for a quick clean-up:
Anastasis would seem to disagree. It is evident according to him that the context demands they be ‘false gods’….in that case, the connection is destroyed….
I don't care how he takes it. He's entitled to his own opinion - and in any case, not every commentator believes that
Psalm 97:7 is the passage in question, so Anastasis probably prefers the
Deuteronomy reference, as do many others. A break with
Psalm 97:7 doesn't present any difficulty when an alternative verse is in view.
Only you seem to have a problem with this (lack of mention).
Read it again:
Personally, I believe that Psalm 97:7 is the most accurate match - but the only problem with it, is that neither passage (Deuteronomy 32:43 & Psalm 97:7) mentions the Messiah at all, let alone his entry into the world.
I accept the link - there's no question about it in my mind. It's just not very explicit, that's all.
Heb2:13 “And again he [Jesus] says, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.” Cf..Is8:18. Now this is interesting; Jesus did not ‘exist’ at the time this was spoken, nor was it spoken by Jesus in Isaiah….see how your highly selective logic functions……
I'm not being selective - and I don't have a problem with
Isaiah 8:18, because we are told in that chapter that it is the prophet speaking. Like David in his Messianic psalms, Isaiah takes on the role of the Messiah himself. We are not expected to believe that this is the Messiah speaking - especially since
Isaiah 8 confirms that it is Isaiah!
Thus, Robertson:
Heb 2:13 - I will put my trust in him (Egō esomai pepoithōs ep' autōi).
A rare periphrastic (intransitive) future perfect of peithō, a quotation from Isa_8:17. The author represents the Messiah as putting his trust in God as other men do (cf. Heb_12:2). Certainly Jesus did this constantly. The third quotation (kai palin, And again) is from Isa_8:18 (the next verse), but the Messiah shows himself closely linked with the children (paidia) of God, the sons (huioi) of Heb_2:10.
Johnson likewise:
Heb 2:13-15 - And again.
A quotation is now given from Isa_8:17, in which the Messiah is represented associating himself with the saints as all children of God. The point is that Christ makes himself the brother of the saved. Heb_2:17-18 are quoted in order to give this point clearly.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown concur, elaborating on the significance of the Christological antitype:
Behold I and the children, &c.--
(Isa_8:18). "Sons" (Heb_2:10), "brethren" (Heb_2:12), and "children," imply His right and property in them from everlasting. He speaks of them as "children" of God, though not yet in being, yet considered as such in His purpose, and presents them before God the Father, who has given Him them, to be glorified with Himself. Isaiah (meaning "salvation of Jehovah") typically represented Messiah, who is at once Father and Son, Isaiah and Immanuel (Isa_9:6).
He expresses his resolve to rely, he and his children, not like Ahaz and the Jews on the Assyrian king, against the confederacy of Pekah of Israel, and Rezin of Syria, but on Jehovah; and then foretells the deliverance of Judah by God, in language which finds its antitypical full realization only in the far greater deliverance wrought by Messiah. Christ, the antitypical Prophet, similarly, instead of the human confidences of His age, Himself, and with Him GOD THE FATHER'S children (who are therefore His children, and so antitypical to Isaiah's children, though here regarded as His "brethren," compare Isa_9:6; "Father" and "His seed," Isa_53:10) led by Him, trust wholly in God for salvation. The official words and acts of all the prophets find their antitype in the Great Prophet (Rev_19:10), just as His kingly office is antitypical to that of the theocratic kings; and His priestly office to the types and rites of the Aaronic priesthood.
Notice that crucial point - "He speaks of them as "children" of God, though not yet in being, yet considered as such in His purpose..." In the same way, Christ is
foreshadowed,
while yet he did not exist. (See also
John 8:58, 17:3, etc.) Notice also that the prophets, kings and priests
represent Christ, speaking on his behalf as if they were Jesus himself,
because he does not yet exist at this time!
*snip*
Duh.
I was simply pointing out the apparent tension between the OT and NT texts - a tension highlighted and discussed by both Clarke and Robertson. I wasn't denying the link, and I wasn't casting aspersions on prophecy. Your comments about the virgin birth in
Isaiah et al have no relevance here.
I see no corresponding text which says that the angels worshipped Christ at his birth. Do you? If you do, feel free to post it. If you don't, my comment is not an "assertion" but a fact.
*snip*
No, he didn't. And I already agreed that
Psalm 97:7 is the closest match, so you can see for yourself that I'm not denying the truth of Paul's words. I am merely commenting on the fact that:
- Paul does not refer to a literal event (i.e. the angels did not worship Christ at his birth.)
- The fact that Paul does not refer to a literal event, creates an apparent tension between the OT and NT accounts (as noted by various commentators.)
- Paul is, however, correct when he says that this is what the Father has said, so the fact that the literal event has not occurred, is irrelevant.
- Psalm 97:7 is not as explicit as we would expect for a prophetic statement of this nature - although the link is preserved if we translate elohim in verse 7 as "angels", not "gods." (Are you willing to do this, AV?)
Just as an aside, take a quick look at
Psalm 2:7, where Jesus is said to have been begotten "this day",
even though we know that this did not literally occur until much later! It's another classic example of "Jewish pre-existence", which is
figurative, not
literal.
Think about it...
PS. "Isaiah" means "salvation of
Yahweh." Following the standard Trinitarian logic, this means that Isaiah
is Yahweh!
